SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 271(1)(c) of the Act are fulfilled. In view of the above, the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess the penalty in respect of interest and the excess depreciation is also cancelled cancelled. The relevant grounds of the appeal of The relevant grounds of the appeal

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 is not illegal and bad in law. Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore, it is very clear that the notice issued u/s 148 is Therefore

AJAY MULTI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, C.J. House, 285 Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Pan No. Aadca 0338 H Appellant Respondent

148 the Act for reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer. Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd Ajay Multi Projects Pvt. Ltd 2. The notice u/s148 is bad in law and 2. The notice u/s148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional requirements of section 147 to 151 have as the jurisdictional requirements of section

SHIVRAM S SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THANE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

penalty notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under section\n274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2015-16.”\n13. From the above observation, it is evident that though the Joint/Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax has recommended for reopening of the assessment to the\nLd. PCIT for his approval, the Hon'ble High Court held that

SHIVRAM S SHETTY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

penalty notice dated 30th March, 2022 issued under section\n274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2015-16.”\n13. From the above observation, it is evident that though the Joint/Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax has recommended for reopening of the assessment to the\nLd. PCIT for his approval, the Hon'ble High Court held that

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the issue on merits. issue on merits. 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 2

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

148 of the Act. I proceed to decide the issue on merits. issue on merits. 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 9.1. The amounts in question are two credit entries of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 2

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

2. Without prejudice, on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that penalty cannot be levied when income is determined on estimate basis.” The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who 03. filed his return

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

2. Without prejudice, on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that penalty cannot be levied when income is determined on estimate basis.” The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual who 03. filed his return

M/S SANJEEV CHIRANIA HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-28(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sanjeev Chirania Huf, Ito-28(3)(1), 301, Sona Chambers, 507/509 Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Jss Road, Chira Bazar, Station Commercial Marine Lines – East, Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 002. Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan No. Aarhs 4527 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ritu Kamalkishor, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

u/s 144 of the Act.It indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing indicate that the Appellant had no intention of filing return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till he was offered an opportunity in the return of income till

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, but being pari-materia,\nis applicable over the facts of this case also. However, we do not\nagree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the\nreason that penalty is levied on charge of undisclosed income\ndefined under the said section and rate of the penalty depends on\nthe other

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY\n2020-21 are partly allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act, but being pari-materia,\nis applicable over the facts of this case also. However, we do not\nagree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the\nreason that penalty is levied on charge of undisclosed income\ndefined under the said section and rate of the penalty depends on\nthe other

DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LIMITED(CONVERTED INTO DWARKA CEMENT WORKS LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022),MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(2)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)(1), Mumbai has erred in issuing Notice u/s.\n148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which in violation of Provisions of Sec.\n151A r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961.\n3. The Order passed by the Learned Income-tax Officer, National\nFaceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2015-16 u/s. 143(3) of the Act\nread with Section 148

VINEET THAKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO(41)(4)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

2,08,451/- only and not Rs. 6,53,800/- which figure is inclusive of interest of Rs. 4,45,349/- u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 6.1 On careful consideration of the contentions, we find that in the case under consideration, penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) has been imposed in terms of Explanation 3 thereof, being a case

NILANJANA ARVINDER SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act.” 6. In both appeals, the assessee has challenged the validity of the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and has also raised the grounds on merits, challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”). Since the ground challenging the reopening